Bosnia and Herzegovina: Stability and Peace

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), I am privileged to chair the all-party parliamentary group on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, which was set up by the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and Baroness Helić, who sits in the other place. The APPG and the initiative have recently been relaunched, and I understand that Stuart Peach is to have a remit and a role. The initiative shows the significance of ensuring that women are included in the peace discussions, and that we can push for justice, support, and action against the perpetrators.

At this point in the debate, there is little else that I can say that has not already been mentioned. This is the second significant debate that we have had in this House on Bosnia in about three weeks. It is important that we continue this momentum and pressure to ensure that Bosnians, Bosniaks and people of the western Balkans understand that we will continue to discuss and debate this issue, and that this House is united and the Government are listening, because today’s call for action is unanimous.

There is no doubt that we need to recognise the genocide that has gone on in the western Balkans and in Bosnia, but it is also important to understand that Bosnia might be the first domino that will fall, and if it falls we will see action in Kosovo and issues in Montenegro, and we will give up the ghost in the western Balkans as a whole; the spread of fear and intimidation is being used to divide people. Of course, after Afghanistan we have seen that the west’s response has been somewhat subdued. We need to use this as the opportunity for the west to regain its confidence and to act and intervene where necessary. Bosnia is a case in point, not just because of our history or the extraordinary service of our soldiers and the UN peacekeeping forces, but because it is in our backyard and it is the playground of Russia, and of Serbia and Croatia, where they are trying to ignore international rules.

So much has been said about Dodik, but we know his playbook. It will be to use a small riot or some security issue, and then areas will go into lockdown and police forces will arrive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) said, we are already seeing it. Those are the tactics that will be used; we have to expect them, but we have to expect a robust response.

We should have two focuses. The first is on the short term. Today we need a commitment from the Foreign Secretary to respond. If Dodik takes action and there is intervention, we need to be able to say with confidence that we will react and encourage others to do so. We need to ensure that sanctions and travel bans are implemented. I do not know whether the UK will unilaterally put sanctions and travel bans on individuals, but we should have no fear or hesitation about publishing a list of those we want to target; that should be absolutely no problem for us. Of course, this short-term focus must also be about reaffirming territorial integrity. We made this point during the last urgent question on this issue, but we need this reaffirmation conclusively, and we need it to be repeated again and again and again.

The second perspective is the long term. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, we need to reform annexe 4 of the constitution to ensure that there is democratic accountability, and to give that confidence to people in the region and area. As so many Members have said, the Dayton accord needs to be modernised and updated.

Russia and China are meddling and disrupting in the region. Russia is arming police forces in the Republika Srpska. China is trying to encourage a debt-trap scenario in Bosnia. Those are two of the outside players, but we must ensure that there is accountability towards Croatia and Serbia, because, frankly, they must be held to account for their actions. If they want to see entry into the EU or other organisations, we must hold them to account on this issue.

Today’s announcement about Sir Stuart Peach is particularly welcome, but would the Minister inform the House on what his remit will be, when he will be reporting back on what is going on, and what his powers will be, because this morning’s announcement was very broad?

We have seen EU intransigence, NATO inaction and US indifference. I am sorry to put it like that, but the United Kingdom seems to be the only country right now that is standing up and talking about this issue. As other Members have said, we have a duty to lead. Let us lead and let us restore the confidence in the international rules-based order, and support an extraordinary country.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on Bosnia and Herzegovina and the potential of a renewed conflict in the Western Balkans.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he is right to highlight it. The recent political violence is of significant concern to the UK Government. Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian Serb member of the presidency, has threatened to withdraw Republika Srpska—the entity—from a range of state institutions. That is an act that the High Representative calls a de facto secession. This is a dangerous and deliberate attempt to distract from a failure to improve standards of living and to tackle corruption. It is unacceptable.

The UK fully supports the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the devastating conflict of the 1990s, the region has lived in peace for 26 years, and the Dayton political system, which should have been used to deliver progress and development for citizens, has been exploited by politicians who are focused on building and maintaining their own position.

We recognise the important role that the EUFOR peace and stabilisation force has played, and we welcome the renewal of its mandate—an important deterrent against those malign actors who wish to see instability on Europe’s doorstep. We worked hard in the Security Council to ensure that it authorised EUFOR’s mandate for a further 12 months. The UK continues to play an active role. My hon. Friend the Europe Minster was in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the summer to support that work.

The High Representative will visit the UK for meetings in December. The UK is in close contact with him to ensure that we work in co-operation and is giving him vocal support, including on the use of executive powers should the situation require it. That is a further check and balance on the destabilising actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the upcoming NATO Foreign Ministers meeting, the Foreign Secretary will push for more focus and resource on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the need to rebuff Russia’s actions.

The international community also has collective responsibility to ensure that there is no return to the conflict of the 1990s. Along with our international partners, we are ensuring that the High Representative’s position and work are secured, and we will continue to urge Russia to return to productive engagement with the peace implementation council’s steering board. Along with our international partners, we are working to tackle the divisive rhetoric and actions from some politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the threat to re-establish a Republika Srpska army and to pull out of other established state-level institutions.

The UK is committed to helping the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina build a better future in a stable and prosperous state, with strong institutions. We support the NATO Headquarters Sarajevo, including through the secondment of UK staff officers who play an important role in building the capacity of the armed forces. We are providing capacity building and expertise to those actors who demonstrate genuine commitment to progress.

[Anthony Mangnall]

For almost 30 years we have been engaged in the Balkans, and until recently in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In December last year we withdrew from Operation Althea, the international stabilisation force in the country. The decision to withdraw came just as Bosnia was about to be put under the worst possible pressure by Bosnian Serb secessionist leaders. In the words of the High Representative, Christian Schmidt, who reported to the UN Security Council last week:

“Bosnia and Herzegovina faces the greatest existential threat of the post-war period…the prospects for further division and conflict are very real…ignoring or downplaying this state of affairs could have perilous implications for the region and beyond.”

The secessionists are operating with the support of Russia, as we saw at the Security Council meeting last week, and Serbia, as is evident from the joint military exercises held in the past few weeks between Serbia and Bosnian Serb forces. This is a dangerous situation in a country where ethnic cleansing and genocide were perpetrated in the 1990s. With that in mind, will the Minister tell the House that it is still Government policy that the redrawing of borders in the Balkans was finished in the 1990s, and that they will not tolerate any secessionist adventurism? The EUFOR presence on the ground in Bosnia is hardly sufficient to respond to any security challenge, with only 700 troops on the ground and inadequate equipment. What consideration has been given to redeploying UK forces in support of EUFOR and through NATO? What consideration has been given to imposing sanctions on anyone undermining the Dayton peace accords, which is in line with the US but sadly lacking from the EU and UK?

In an article written last week, Baroness Helić quotes the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, commenting on the Bosnian genocide in 2000. He said the most important lesson was that

“we must recognize evil for what it is, and confront it not with expediency and compromise, but with implacable resistance.”

Now is the time for us to act, not to wait. If we fail to do so, we will further weaken the international rules-based order and embolden our enemies, and we will also see death and destruction rage again in our backyard.

[James Cleverly]

I reflect on the passion with which my hon. Friend puts forward the case, and he is completely right. The period of borders being redrawn in that region is behind us. We saw the devastating conflicts of the 1990s, and nobody should be willing to go back to that period. We support EUFOR. I beg my hon. Friend’s indulgence, but I am not going to speculate on what a future stabilisation or military force composition might be like. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will shortly be raising this issue in the strongest terms at the meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Riga. We support the NATO Headquarters Sarajevo, and my hon. Friend will know that it is a long-standing policy of the UK Government not to speculate on future sanctions designations, for fear that doing so might undermine their effectiveness. We are determined to ensure that the peace the region has enjoyed for the past quarter of a century is maintained.

Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Joint Committee

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The relatives of my constituents who are trapped in Afghanistan are precisely those people who for the past 20 years have organised their lives around the future that we promised them: a future of a democratic, rights-based Afghanistan where education and equality were to be entrenched. It is for that reason that they became teachers, lawyers, police officers, judges and doctors. They believed that it was possible to build a new Afghanistan where women, religious minorities like the Shi’as, ethnic minorities like Hazaras, and LGBTQ people were all treated with equal dignity. They did not abandon that promise; we did. Now it is my constituents’ relatives who have been left vulnerable to reprisal. They are in hiding. They are being hunted. They are being executed, and women are being captured and given out as a prize of war.

When Kabul fell a month ago, Members of Parliament and their staff worked round the clock to assist British citizens and their Afghan partners and children, and tried to get them safe passage back to the UK, but everything had started too late and the American deadline governed everything. We need to assess the utter failure of intelligence that had insisted that the Afghan Government would hold Kabul for a further three months. We need an inquiry into why, after 20 years of occupation, our military had not prepared a plan B for an emergency evacuation.

My case against the Government today is that, for many weeks, they engaged Members of Parliament on a fool’s errand. They gave us telephone numbers and email addresses where we should send all the details of our constituents’ loved ones. We were asked to point out how they might be particularly vulnerable because of the work they had done or the religion they professed. This, we were told, was necessary so that they could be “prioritised” and provided a “route to safety”. And we did just that. We took the Government at their word and our staff gave their all, day and night and through weekends, to provide just that information. Now we are told that all that documentation of thousands of desperate lives has gone into a black hole.

The Minister responsible for Afghan resettlement, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), wrote to us to say:

“We cannot provide to MPs assessments or updates on those individuals who remain in Afghanistan and whose cases they have raised.”

In what must count as the ministerial understatement of the year, she said:

“We appreciate this is difficult news to deliver to constituents who are desperately worried about family members and friends.”

She concluded:

“With great regret, we will not be able, therefore, to respond to colleagues with specific updates on individuals.”

This is an extraordinary abrogation of responsibility for those to whom our country owed a debt of honour.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting and for giving the hon. Gentleman an extra minute. If he feels so strongly about this, why is the Opposition motion to have an inquiry? Why is the Opposition motion not to ask for more resources to be put forward to help in this situation?

[Barry Gardiner]

I do not think that anybody can be under any illusion about the fact that all of us who have been dealing with this would want more resources put into the situation.

We were engaged with these people for 20 years in a common endeavour—one that we said reflected our values. Well, where is the value of loyalty? Where is the value of commitment and trust? What we have projected to the world is that we do not care about the lives that are left in ruins or the vicious reprisals that will now be taken against our former friends.

One of my constituents has two brothers. They were in hiding, but were found by the Taliban. One of them was taken out and executed on the spot, the other beaten to a pulp and left for dead, but the Government will not be able to respond to me

“with specific updates about his situation”.

The fact is that, despite what the Minister says, the Government are not “prioritising” these people on the at-risk scheme. They cannot give them priority when they do not know where they are, when there is not even an application form that can be filled out to secure them a place on the resettlement scheme, and when they do not tell these people the most vital information: namely, that they have been prioritised.

The Minister’s letter is full of language that is designed to conceal the fact that nothing is being done for these people. All of this is objectionable, but nothing more so than the unspeakable arrogance of the Minister’s request that MPs should cease to present their constituents’ cases to her Department. It is so very far beyond extraordinary that a Minister of the Crown should actually request that MPs do not stand up for their constituents that I feel I must quote the letter:

“Please signpost individuals to gov.uk to check for the latest information...rather than seek to pursue cases on their behalf.”

The Minister should be absolutely certain that I will not obey any such instruction to stop advocating for my constituents. The Government may choose not to respond, but I will continue to do my duty as a constituency MP.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

This is an interesting motion to have to speak against, because I work with a number of Opposition Members on a range of foreign affairs and development issues. To find myself on the polar opposite side from them on an issue that I care deeply about is somewhat frustrating. As has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, if there is the ability for Select Committees to take the decision unilaterally to carry out an investigation or an inquiry into Afghanistan, then that opportunity is already there. I meant no disrespect to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) by intervening and suggesting that point, nor am I giving advice to the Labour party, but the suggestion in the motion seems at odds with what we really want to do. Members across the House have raised their legitimate concerns and spoken about what they want to do to help constituents and their families who may be in Afghanistan. I want to concentrate on that.

As the Minister said in his opening remarks, we have to focus on the diplomatic levers at our disposal in the form of the G7, NATO or the UN. Failing that, we should look to see how we can co-operate with others in the region or others who may have a vested interest in helping out in these circumstances—a D10+, perhaps. That is what we should be looking at and focusing on, because inquiries will not help the people of Afghanistan now, when we most desperately need to do so.

I was surprised that the shadow Foreign Secretary, who makes incredibly powerful speeches, did not pay more attention to the support that we can give to NGOs, the only western organisations that are still on the ground—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady wants to intervene, she is more than welcome to.

[Lisa Nandy]

I have written to the Foreign Secretary three times on that very point and not received a response. Perhaps the Minister, who has heard this exchange, will respond to that point today.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I very much hope so. I was making that point about the hon. Lady’s speech this afternoon, not about private letters that I would not have seen. I have had conversations with the Minister, including last night, about what extra support we can give to the NGOs. The House needs to think very carefully about how we integrate and operate with, and support, the NGOs, because it is in the Taliban’s interest that those organisations stay there.

My second point is one that I have made before in this Chamber, regarding the reopening of our embassy. A set of parameters will clearly have to be met to allow us to reopen the British embassy, but doing so will allow us to have a diplomatic network and a presence in Afghanistan again. I hasten to add that we have the most extensive diplomatic network in the world, which most of our allies rely on, including in places such as North Korea. These are the things that we need to think about so that we can help the people of Afghanistan—not through inquiries, but through delegated action and the achievement of helping to bring people back to and over to the UK.

My last point is about preventing sexual violence in conflict, as I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) raised the point about women in Afghanistan, and rightly so. We have to think about how an initiative such as that can be emboldened to help those who are most likely to be at risk under one of the most despotic regimes in the world.

Concentrating on those suggestions would do far more than calling for inquiries, which will give no hope or peace of mind to the people of Afghanistan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the members of our armed forces and diplomatic staff who have worked tirelessly over the past months in Afghanistan. The shambles lies with Ministers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said. We have to scrutinise this and ensure that lessons are learned. We have some very difficult and unpalatable choices to face in Afghanistan, and some people to speak to whom we do not want to speak to, but those choices will have to be made if we are going to avoid any humanitarian crisis and rescue the people who have been left behind.

The lessons do need to be learned and Ministers need to be scrutinised, but I have a problem with this motion. As outlined by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Intelligence and Security Committee is the only Committee of this House that can have access to the highest grade of top secret information. The motion covers intelligence, but it would be very difficult for the Committee to have access to that. Its members would have to get the highest level of security clearance, and staff would also have to meet those requirements. There would have to be new accommodation to ensure that that information could be discussed. The ISC has its own dedicated accommodation. Computer systems would have to be put in place that could deal with that intelligence. That would simply not be possible, and that is a good reason why the Committee should not be set up in this way.

The Intelligence and Security Committee was set up under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and its powers extended under the Justice and Security Act 2013. We have already asked to see the intelligence that informed Government decision making. Once we have seen that intelligence, we will then wait to see the next steps. It would be wrong to prejudge that. Not only would it be impractical to set up this Committee and take forward some of the things in the motion, but it would undermine the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are already having a battle with the Government on trying to get access to information in areas that intelligence has now seeped into—for example, the National Security Strategic Investment Fund.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the very difficult practicalities around setting up an inquiry and the intelligence that has to go with it. There is also a limitation on how much intelligence we are able to get out of Afghanistan because there is no network there. Does he agree that there has to be a period of time before any substantial inquiry could ever be looked at?

[Mr Jones]

No, I do not agree, because the intelligence will be there—the Joint Intelligence Committee report and others—and we will be able to see that. We have not publicly announced that we are going to hold an inquiry, because that would be wrong before we have seen the intelligence. The Minister has assured us today that the Committee will get that information, which will be important before we make those decisions. I understand the good intentions with the proposed Committee, but the motion has been fatally drafted by the inclusion of the intelligence element.

As a long supporter of the Select Committee system in this House, I share some of the concerns of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I sit on the Defence Committee, which has already instigated an inquiry looking at the military’s involvement in that short period.

This is a mess, and it is right that the Government are held to account. I share the anger that many Members from all parts of the House feel at having been ignored in trying to do their job representing their constituents and trying to get people out of very desperate situations. The Minister’s blasé approach does not help. We are elected to represent our constituents here. This situation has created a huge amount of pressure on many Members of Parliament who have large numbers of individuals involved, as well as on our staff. The Foreign Office has to learn lessons. One of the biggest mistakes was dividing the issue between three Departments. Those lessons need to be learned, and Members of Parliament have to be listened to. Our emails and letters cannot just be ignored and treated as other representations to the Foreign Office.

If those things are done, that will improve the situation, but the lessons have to be learned, and the actions and the scrutiny have to be done. In terms of intelligence, the only Committee that can do that is the ISC. We will wait to see what the intelligence assessment says, and then we will take those decisions. That is why I feel I cannot support this motion tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady, but she is wrong on two counts. It was yesterday that the UK, along with our EU, NATO and US allies and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, publicly attributed the Microsoft Exchange server attacks to the Chinese; it was not then that they took place. She is also wrong in her characterisation of the Mansion House speech. Of course, we have made it clear right across Government that we will hold the Chinese Government to account on human rights, but also on cyber-attacks or other nefarious activities, while also seeking a constructive relationship.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

What steps he has taken to deploy personnel from the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict initiative UK team of experts to Ethiopia.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)]

Our priority is to get access for humanitarian actors in Tigray. We have seen some improvements since the Foreign Secretary called for greater access, but it is still not good enough. We have, however, deployed an expert at PSVI to Ethiopia in June for a scoping mission, recommendations from which will outline further support that may be possible, including additional deployments.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for deploying a member of the PSVI unit or team—whichever we are calling it. It is particularly welcome that we are stepping forward and providing that assistance, but in the light of the fact that the United Nations cannot consider any of the issues without a resolution, will the UK Government push for a resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Council to consider all the ongoing human rights abuses in the Tigray region?

[James Duddridge]

We look at all options. Under the G7 presidency, we issued a joint statement of Foreign and Development Ministers on 2 April; there was also a statement on 2 May and a communiqué from leaders on 13 June. We will continue to work with UN colleagues as well.

Official Development Assistance and the British Council

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the very good speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and I echo her comments in thanking FCDO staff and aid workers around the world for the work that they do, often, as she said, in extremely difficult circumstances. I would also like to say to the Minister that I am grateful to Lord Ahmad for the discussions he is having with me on modern slavery and initiatives on modern slavery, and those discussions are continuing.

Before I come to the specific points I want to make on the estimates, I will make a general point on this debate, because I believe that, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) last week, the Prime Minister implied that this debate was a vote on 0.7%. Of course, it is a vote on the estimates for the FCDO. It cannot be used as a proxy vote on 0.7%, and I hope the Government will accept that and recognise that the calls for a vote on 0.7% are still there.

There are two issues that I particularly want to raise. The first is that, in the limited information available to us on aid spending from the Government, there seems to be little suggestion from the Government that they are actually paying attention to the important linkages between the different elements of spending in the aid budget. This is often an holistic matter, and these things cannot just be looked at in silos.

To give just one example of this, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is rightly very keen to encourage girls’ education around the world. It has been a theme of Conservative Governments now for some considerable time. We have taken it up in G7 meetings, and we have encouraged others around the world to take up that theme. Of course, a girl who is educated is less likely to be lured into modern slavery. However, if we cut the programmes for dealing with modern slavery, that girl may not be able to get into education because the slave drivers and the gangs—the criminal gangs—may have got to her first. We have to look at these issues holistically and at the linkages between them.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting her, but she is making such an excellent point, and exactly the same argument can be made on tackling gender-based violence. If we want to succeed in getting women through education, then we must tackle gender-based violence. It is a comprehensive package, and that is why we need to be securing the 0.7%.

[Mrs May]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I gave just one example, but actually we have to look at aid funding holistically, and look at the linkages between areas and the impact of cuts in one area on another area. There is no evidence, I am afraid, from what I have seen from the Government, that that is what they have done. It does appear that they have just cut in silos. We see, for example, that the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery has an 80% cut in its funding and there is a 25% cut in funding for girls’ education, but these are linked. I urge the Government to look at those links.

I want to note that, in their response to the fourth special report of the Select Committee, in late September —28 September—last year, the Government said:

“The Government’s manifesto made clear that we would proudly maintain our commitment to spending 0.7 percent of our national income on development—a commitment enshrined in law and one to which the new Department will honour its responsibilities. The Integrated Review, which will inform the priorities and direction for this new department, will set an ambitious vision for the future of the UK as an active, internationalist, problem-solving and burden-sharing nation. Investing 0.7 percent of Gross National Income…on international development is at the heart of that vision; it shows we are an enterprising, outward-looking and truly global Britain that is fully engaged with the world.”

That was at the end of September 2020, and in November 2020 the funding was cut. Either one hand does not know what the other hand is doing in the Government, or they were just trying to calm everybody into a sense that everything was going to be okay before they actually wielded the knife on this particular issue.

The second point I want to make is about the impact on the UK’s presence on the world stage of the decisions that have been taken. This relates not just to ODA spending, but to the spending of the FCDO in general. I note that the Select Committee, in response to the decision to merge DFID into the FCO, said that it had

“significant concerns that the merger may jeopardise the ongoing effectiveness of future UK aid spending… In the long run, the creation of the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office could reduce the UK’s clout on the world stage.”

I fear that it is reducing the UK’s clout on the world stage, and this cut in overseas aid is but one example of that, although we focus, as we have in previous debates on this issue, on the very real impact on the ground of the money being cut from different programmes. The health programme has been mentioned by the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Rotherham, but there are others, including the cut in funding to starving people in Yemen, for example, and all of these are having a real impact on the ground.

The FCDO also needs to look very carefully at the DFID expertise that is now within the FCDO. As it looks across its estimates and at how it is spending its money in the Department, it needs to make very certain that it does not lose that expertise. There have been times in the past when people have rightly questioned the way in which our aid money has been spent, but I have to say that that has changed in recent years, largely due to and initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he was the International Development Secretary. We spend our aid differently, and we have developed—and successive International Development Secretaries did this too—real expertise. We are now hitting the needy across the world with a double whammy because they are losing our funding and they are losing our expertise as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I will not go over the existing point about 0.7% and 0.5%, because I think the House knows my view. I share absolutely the views of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who have made their point—and, in fact, my point—extremely clearly.

Instead, I will focus on the integrated review and the merger of the Departments, and what it actually means according to the statements of Her Majesty’s Government compared with the actions on the ground. I would suggest that there is a slight dissonance between the talk of global Britain engaging directly with nations, and the cuts to bilateral Britain while we are reinforcing multilateral action. Now, I understand why we have taken those decisions: we have legal contracts with multilateral agencies and therefore we have legal obligations with them that are harder to break; so instead we are undermining our own policy and weakening those bilateral ties.

It seems to me—perhaps the Minister will be able to explain why I am wrong—that we are wracked over the small print while others are racking up the newsprint of their achievements, and that is a mistake. It is a mistake because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made clear, we need to be demonstrating our place around the world. I support the ambitions of aligning the two Departments, and indeed of bringing the Department for International Trade and perhaps other Departments much closer together with the Foreign Office. My former colleagues in the Ministry of Defence will not like this terribly, but I support the idea of having a Foreign Secretary who is the strategic mind for the British Government overseas, including on the deployment of, for example, carriers. HMS Queen Elizabeth is in port in Cyprus today. Although the Foreign Office should have had a very clear view on her role and deployment, and was absolutely right to support the ships going through international waters—or Ukrainian waters, as they were only the other day—I would never argue that an ambassador should be the admiral of a fleet or that a political councillor should be the captain of a destroyer. The same is true, I am afraid, in respect of aid spending; there is a technical expertise here that is not the same as the strategic oversight of foreign policy, which is why I would like to see some of this coming back and being reinforced as the technical skill it really is.

Let us look at a few examples. Some have said to me that perhaps we are going back to a pre-1930s world, and there is certainly a hint of that. Let us look at the cuts we have seen in Lebanon, a very important historical ally, one in which we have invested heavily, through the Lebanese armed forces and through the relationship of building capability that would fight terrorism, which we all face. This is an organisation that has done more to hold the state of Lebanon together than many of its supposedly civic institutions. We have invested an awful lot and we have a huge amount of good will—having been there and met the Lebanese armed forces chief when I was serving in the armed forces, I can also say that we have also brought back a lot of raki from his personal collection, but that is a separate matter. We have built up a fantastic relationship with a very important strategic partner in the middle east. That is not just good for Lebanon, which is facing the crisis of a quarter or a third of its population being migrants—refugees forced over from the Syrian civil war—and nor is it just a good moment for the middle east, because it creates a link into various forms of support into other countries, but it is brilliant for Britain. It is fundamentally strengthening the UK and our place in the world. It gives us a toehold into one of the most vibrant financial climates in the region and an essential partner for so many of our other operations.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to interrupt him, because he makes an excellent point about how our having that relationship with countries promotes Britain. But it is also about the organisations we support, be it the HALO Trust or War Child. These organisations end up being supported by the British Government and then find themselves on active duty promoting our interests—helping save people. That is also integral to delivering the global Britain message.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have spoken to the Mines Advisory Group about its work in Lebanon, which has been so important, not just in promoting our interests. Sadly, it will almost certainly be needed not just in Iraq, where it has operated at some points, but in Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate, but it is actually quite painful as well, because none of us want to see a cut in the assistance that we give to other countries that are less well-favoured than we are.

This debate covers pages 183 to 196 of a meaty document that runs to 680 pages, and we have mainly focused—and correctly so—on international development. Other elements of the document will sadly be glossed over in our enthusiasm to debate this particular issue, but it is right that we should do so.

To those who have contributed so far, who I think have all been critical of the decision to go to 0.5%, I say that we should never make the excellent the enemy of the good. We should celebrate the good that UK aid does. An important point to make is that what the Government are charged to decide upon has real-life consequences, no question about it. If that were not so, we would be wasting billions of pounds every year, and manifestly we are not. The question is: how much should we be spending on international development in the longer term? If we are arguing for a reduction of £4.5 billion for this year but we are doing £4.5 billion of good work, perhaps we should be spending more in the future, rather than less, That point has been made by only one contributor today, from the Scottish National party.

I am not advocating that, because we have to make a judgment about what is a proper amount of our national income to spend on international development. Notwithstanding all the polling data cited today, when I am uncertain I have to listen to my constituents. I did so the last time I significantly rebelled against my own party, which was in 2003, over the Iraq war, and I would do so on an issue such as this. The message I get from my constituents on this issue—perhaps they dramatically differ from those in Chesham and Amersham, but I have no way of telling—is that this is something they are relaxed about, at best, on public spending. I get it in the neck for spending on education, healthcare, law and order, and all of those issues time and again. When I say, “Where are you going to find the money?”, nine times out of 10 the response, “International development” comes back at me. I have to justify this spend, because I do believe, as a former Minister in the then Department for International Development, in what this money is able to achieve. But we have to take the public with us, which is one reason why I was pleased about the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID. As a joint Minister at the time, I was very pleased to see those two Departments joined up because it seemed to me that that was one way of convincing the public that the international development work this Government do also achieves foreign policy goals; I see no problem with that at all, and neither do the overwhelming majority of other countries, particularly European countries, which do not separate the two functions.

I also welcome the fact that this move is temporary. I will be supporting the Government on this, but that is conditional on this being temporary. When that pledge was made, the UK economy and the prospects were not looking very good at all. I am happy to say that they have brightened up significantly since then,

[Anthony Mangnall]

How temporary is “temporary”?

[Dr Murrison]

One year is temporary; that is the pledge that has been made. I think that is a perfectly reasonable commitment to hold Ministers to. It could be that there is something else around the corner that can be interpreted as force majeure, as set out in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, but in the absence of that my belief is that this, as a temporary measure—one year—is acceptable. I do not like it—I loathe it and I accept my responsibility for some of the consequences—but it seems to me to be reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome the chance to speak on the estimates for spending on official development assistance. I wish to take the opportunity, as other hon. Members have done, to question the Government’s decision to cut the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. I understand the points raised by the Treasury about the need to make savings, given the financial strain caused by covid-19, and I understand that difficult decisions must be made. However, as has been said in this House, the cut of approximately £4 billion in aid is worth only about 1% of what the Chancellor has borrowed to protect us from covid.

I take issue with any cut to our aid budget, but I take even more issue with where the cuts appear to be falling. If we absolutely must cut aid, we need to investigate very carefully where savings can be made. I question whether the Government should have done more to manage the reduction of the budget without slashing funding for lifesaving programmes. The cut from £15 billion to £10.7 billion is a cut of about 30%, so why have we cut 60% of the UNICEF budget, 85% of the United Nations Population Fund’s, and 80% of our funding for water projects? Clean water is life itself.

[Anthony Mangnall]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. One of the bigger issues is the speed at which the cuts were announced, which did not give time for any of the organisations that saw those cuts to be able to prepare for them—to be able to put in mitigating circumstances to allow them to run programmes on a skeleton staff, or whatever it may have been. We have not given the right amount of lead time for these businesses and organisations to be able to prepare for the cuts. If we wanted to make the cuts, we should have delayed doing it and put them into another year altogether.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend; he is right. There seems to have been very little planning generally in both the speed of the cuts and where they have fallen.

Why have we not looked at the administration costs in this budget? Why have water projects and UNICEF projects, in particular, been cut so drastically? We need to pause and think for a moment. Let us try to rectify much of the damage that has been done, because these things can be brought back into place. I have given just a few examples, but it seems that the most vital programmes have taken a disproportionate hit. Cutting the budget for the UN Population Fund from £154 million to £23 million will have a devastating impact on the ground. Likewise, our commitments to water and sanitation projects will be cut from £176 million to about £35 million. We are not talking about billions of pounds. These are relatively small amounts of cash, especially in the grand scheme of £400 billion that we have borrowed to battle covid-19 and save lives in this country—which I very much support. I therefore question whether the money for these programmes could have been cut in other areas instead.

I have been to Bangladesh and seen for myself the needs of people there. They are people with very little or nothing who cannot rely on a generous welfare state when things go wrong as we can here in the UK. It is easy to forget, as we live in a prosperous country, that there are people in the world who do not have access to clean water. As I said, water is life itself, and so slashing our capacity to provide clean water to the poorest will cost lives. We must ask ourselves what we would do if our children and grandchildren were in that position and reliant on the generosity of foreign Governments to provide clean water. Would we actually stand by and see our children and grandchildren dying for lack of clean water? We would not.

For better or worse, we have a colonial past, and in many cases the poorest nations are former colonies. We cannot turn our back on them now. We must help people in these countries and others who need it who are reliant on aid. This would be true at any time, but in the midst of a pandemic depriving people of clean water when it may be their only defence against the virus is catastrophic. Some people may say that we are doing our bit by supplying vaccines to the developing world as part of COVAX and other schemes, which is true, but mass vaccination programmes are not delivered overnight, and humans need clean water every day to survive. Likewise, cutting funding for family planning is counterproductive when the population in the poorest countries is already greater than their resources, including food and clean water. Preventing access to contraception will cause families to spiral into even greater poverty, putting thousands of lives at risk.

There is a broader problem of the signal that this decision sends to the rest of the world on climate action. The cuts will diminish the ability of the world’s poorest to cope with climate change, and those people are often the hardest hit by it. Taking the water cuts, for example, there is the context of increasing droughts. We need to strengthen the resilience to drought of communities in poor countries, not weaken it. This aid budget cut also means a cut to the UK’s highly effective programme to prevent deforestation in Indonesia. The green economic growth programme focused on providing sustainable livelihoods for local populations who often end up working in harmful environmental practices such as deforestation due to the lack of alternative ways to make a living. The UK programme was changing that; now it has abruptly been cancelled, despite its success.

The Environment Bill is currently going through the Lords, and promises to be world leading on climate change and deforestation. It will be completely undermined if we are cutting funding to tackle deforestation abroad at the same time as making commitments in legislation. There does not appear to be any joined-up thinking—dare I say it—across Government. We are taking strong domestic action on the environment, but these cuts signal that we are not serious enough about tackling the issue globally.

I regret any cuts to our overseas aid budget and cannot see how they deliver tangible benefits to our national finances. I therefore hope that the Government come forward with a method of restoring the budget, whether that is very quickly or more gradually over a longer period of time. In the meantime, these cuts have landed disproportionately and hit the most needed humanitarian programmes. Whatever path the Government choose to take, those programmes must be the first to be restored. I hope that our Ministers can soon bring forward exactly the way in which we are going to reinstate the 0.7% of GNI in the very near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I rise to address the priorities of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office over the coming year. However, in this debate, we must all be cognisant of the fact that the unparalleled support provided by the Government during the coronavirus pandemic has come at an immense cost to the taxpayer. We have set a record for peacetime borrowing—a grim statistic. That high rate of borrowing means that, unfortunately, savings have to be made somewhere.

Let me make this clear: as the Member of Parliament for Rother Valley, I do not want any budget cuts to affect my constituents. I have been vocal about the need to level up left-behind and disadvantaged communities such as my towns of Dinnington, Maltby, Thurcroft, Swallownest and all the rest. My constituents have been ignored for far too long over the decades, but things are now starting to change for the better because of the election of this Conservative Government.

That is why the official development assistance budget must be reduced. We should not be sending vast sums of borrowed money abroad to foreign powers at a time when we can least afford it. I am firmly of the view that we must always look after our own first and foremost. My constituents have endured real hardship during the pandemic, not to mention that Rother Valley already had some of the deepest pockets of deprivation in the country. That is where our aid money should be going during this national emergency.

We are forced to cut aid because of the prevailing circumstances caused by the covid pandemic. Nevertheless, the UK remains a world leader in international aid, delivering more than £10 billion this year alone, which places it as one of the G7’s biggest donors. Britain’s heroic contributions to the global coronavirus vaccination effort are a testament to our status.

In the light of that, we must think carefully about where to direct the Foreign Office and aid expenditure for the year ahead. The Government have been proactive in co-ordinating our diplomatic, defence, trade and aid networks as part of an overarching global Britain strategy. That is vital if we are to maximise our soft power and ensure value for every penny of taxpayers’ money.

We must complement our new approach by taking full advantage of our exit from the European Union and pivoting back towards the Commonwealth. I am incredibly passionate about Britain’s re-engagement with the Commonwealth. The Foreign Office must spend our money on re-establishing deep links with the countries with which we have long and meaningful ties by way of language, shared values, legal systems, governance and traditions. One of the many crimes of our entry into the Common Market was our move away from the Commonwealth, which has stayed by our side in times of war and difficulty over the centuries. We abandoned and subsequently neglected the Commonwealth for more than 40 years. Now is the time for us to reignite the flame and retake our position as a committed and equal partner to our brothers and friends.

Of course, what the left will not tell people about the Commonwealth is that we have far more in common with Singapore than Slovenia, with Australia than Austria and with Ghana than Germany. Contrary to the little Englander narrative, our embracing the Commonwealth embodies a truly global vision—one that is ethnically and religiously diverse and includes developing countries. Unlike the failed French Community, which existed for all the wrong reasons, the Commonwealth of nations is not an anachronistic throwback but a balanced and fair organisation in which every country has a voice, regardless of its size or wealth. Other Commonwealth countries are enthusiastic about their membership, and it is great to see countries such as Rwanda and Mozambique take advantage of the opportunities presented by the political association of 54 diverse countries by joining us. Many other territories are desperate to join this great unity of nations, with Somaliland and South Sudan having also applied.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend reassert the values of the Commonwealth, and I totally agree, but perhaps I should point out to him the fact that these cuts are going to hit our Commonwealth friends—that is where the money is being spent. He started off by saying that we were making cuts because we had incurred such great costs; perhaps he might tell the House where else cuts have been made. The only cut that has been made in the past 13 months is to the foreign aid budget.

[Alexander Stafford]

It is always a pleasure to take an intervention from my hon. Friend. He made two points. First, where should the cuts go? I say that the very first place cuts should be made is to foreign aid and the last place they should be made is anywhere that affects the people of Rother Valley and the people of all our seats. So, in the first place, it is correct that that is where the cuts should go.

On my hon. Friend’s point about the Commonwealth, I completely agree. It is right that we are giving aid, and we should direct more of that in a better way to deepen our ties with the Commonwealth. For me, this debate should not just be about 0.5%, 0.7% or perhaps 0.3%; it should be more about where that percentage is actually going. I argue that it should go towards our friends in countries with which we have deep historical links—to the Commonwealth; to those who have stood by us in good times and bad through hundreds of years, rather than to a political union that was brought about post the second world war in Europe.

It is clear to me that the best use of Foreign Office expenditure is investment in the Commonwealth rather than aid spending in countries outside the Commonwealth. This will allow Britain to maintain its place in the world, grow its footprint in the economies of the future and turbocharge global Britain post Brexit. Even more importantly, in the context of aid, our engagement with the Commonwealth can make the greatest difference to the most people in developing nations. Let me be clear about aid: by engaging with the Commonwealth we can help more people and more of the poorest people. That is very important.

The Commonwealth citizens with whom we have so much in common need our support, and we must now prioritise them. Our neglect of the Commonwealth—and we have neglected the Commonwealth—has unfortunately seen us abdicate responsibility for encouraging good governance and high standards in much of the world. If we reconnect now, it will allow us to speak up for the persecuted anglophone community in what was formerly the Southern Cameroons; to assist in the fight against Islamic extremists in east and west Africa; and to provide comprehensive support to the millions of British nationals in Hong Kong. Such issues must be front and centre as we pivot back towards the Commonwealth.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I emphasise that a cut in the aid budget does not mean a smaller, less influential Britain; it is simply fiscal common sense, allowing us to reduce our borrowing while protecting our constituents from the impact of the cuts. We are still left with a huge Foreign Office and aid budget, which should be redirected to fully embrace the Commonwealth of nations. If we do that, we can spread the benefits of global Britain from Barbados to Botswana, from India to Fiji and from Kenya to Malaysia. That will be a better world for us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Foreign aid spend has frequently been a way for politicians to compete for moral righteousness in the public eye. My Dudley residents care not for this type of posturing.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—he is no longer in the Chamber—who is a near neighbour of mine, referred in his closing remarks to his electorate, implying that they agree with his stance on foreign aid. I would make two points on that. First, my constituency is literally just down the road from his, and I can categorically assert that a significant majority of my residents do not agree with him. Secondly, I gently point out to him that, on average, two thirds of all people polled in this country very recently did not agree with him either. Just the other day, on GB News, he used the majority view argument to support assisted dying, so perhaps he might consider being consistent with his rationale, instead of imposing his moral virtues on the country’s majority view.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. It is fine if that is his argument, but surely he believes that it is right for this House to have a vote on the issue, because we are all representatives of our constituencies, and of the views of our constituents. Forget the polling and allow this place to have its say. Does he not agree with that sentiment?

[Marco Longhi]

I might refer my hon. Friend to votes on Brexit in previous years, when a significant number of elected Members did not represent their constituents and voted the opposite way to them.

Labour will always oppose what the Government do, even if they tripled foreign aid. Having only ever averaged a maximum spend under 0.4% of national income when it was in office, compared with the 0.7% that we achieved, Labour’s protestations are somewhat shallow, if not risible. People will see Labour for what it is: out of touch with working-class people and totally clueless about their priorities.

I am concerned about some of my colleagues. They are being so generous with other people’s money—a notable socialist behaviour, I might add. Perhaps they can explain to my Dudley North taxpayers why we should spend £15 billion overseas when my residents cannot find council houses and when we still have homeless people on our streets, some of them brave veterans.

[Marco Longhi]

I would like to make progress, please.

Covid has given rise to exceptional circumstances, and the Government were entirely right to reduce aid and focus on rebuilding our country. Charity begins at home. That said, I do not agree with reducing the foreign aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income; I would scrap the target altogether. Foreign aid should be and needs to be completely reformed. A fluctuating number each year that bears no real link with need, priorities or actual outcomes is no way to plan or act strategically. It is not how a household would budget, it is not how a business would budget, and it should not be how a Government budget. Which other Government Department do we fund as a percentage of national income?

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Marco Longhi]

I would like to make some progress.

[Anthony Mangnall]

It is on that point—I can give the answer. We committed in our manifesto in 2019 to funding research and development at 2.7% of our GDP. We commit to NATO spending at 2% through the Ministry of Defence. The list goes on.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Dudley North responds to that intervention, it might be helpful for the House to know that so many colleagues have decided at the last minute not to take part in this debate, having originally asked to do so, that there is actually plenty of time. It is quite historic for me to say that; I would normally be saying, “I urge the hon. Gentleman not to take time on interventions”, but he is at liberty to do so.

[Marco Longhi]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will respond by saying it is not the way we fund policing, education or health here at home. Surely a more sophisticated approach that is outcome-focused and delivers measurable change in very poor countries by employing some of our own local and UK-based companies is a far better approach than the arbitrary and unaccountable system that we continue to virtue-signal about.

I would ask two things of colleagues wanting to reinstate the 0.7%: let us focus efforts on achieving much better outcomes by reforming foreign aid, and, while we are at it, focus on challenging the EU and other wealthy countries that consistently fail to meet their own targets and do not measure up to what the UK is certainly doing.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Marco Longhi]

No thank you.

By any measure, the UK already does far more than most, both in cash terms and in areas not captured by our foreign aid spending. Certainly my constituents know that very well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I should like to begin by saying that although I may disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) and for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), it is welcome to see a debate taking place in this Chamber. This is a small step forward to returning to normal, when we can look beyond these pandemic measures and have proper, right and rigorous discussion about how we can reform and improve things in this country and across the world. As we have a bit of time, I thought I could start with a bit of rebuttal. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley talk about how we should focus our spending in the Commonwealth, but I respectfully say to him that aid goes where it is most needed. If he wants to have value for money, it cannot be directed specifically to a cultural, historical, political trading organisation. That is why we must make sure we have an aid programme that delivers for the people, be it in Syria or any Commonwealth country.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is already making a brilliant speech. Does he agree that vast amounts of our humanitarian support and development aid do go to Commonwealth countries, because British aid goes above all to the places where we have a historical connection?

[Anthony Mangnall]

I totally agree. The point I am trying to make is that although we should use aid to support the Commonwealth and to enhance our ties, allowing them to see it directed as something that benefits because of our history, it is also an opportunity for us to look beyond that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as it is always a pleasure to follow her in her debates and to listen to her speak on a host of different issues. We have heard a number of hugely impressive speeches, including from my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), to mention just a few. They have all stood up and spoken about the value of international aid from this country to others and what it does to motivate, save and assist. The point was made at the beginning that the International Development Committee has not been given the true and accurate figures it deserves. I stood up and spoke on retaining that Committee, as I believe it has a value in scrutinising our foreign aid budgets and it must be secured. If it is not getting the correct information, I hope we might hear more about this, because it is essential that the Committee is given the tools to do its job.

The problem with estimates debates is that they take away from the reality of what we are actually talking about. We are standing in this Chamber talking about the vaccinations donated, the school books gifted, the sexual violence perpetrators brought to justice, the deradicalisation of terrorist organisations, all of which happens through our aid budget—it all happens through that 0.7% budget. So to talk about estimates takes away from the reality of the extraordinary work that we do across the country. Members may disagree with that and suggest that their constituents are not supportive of it, but when we stop polling and start asking them about international security, women’s education, vaccinations and justice for those who have committed rape in conflict zones across the world, we get a very different answer from that given in the polls that are put out.

[Alexander Stafford]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as he always does, on an issue of importance, and I agree with what he says about what happens when we ask residents about sexual violence in conflict—people do want answers. But when I speak to people in Rother Valley about these issues, they say, “What about the sexual violence in Maltby? What about the conflicts in Dinnington—the gangs and the knifings?” We have to be realistic; there is only so much money in the budget. If the budget is not cut here, it will be cut somewhere else, and residents of Rother Valley do not want it cut there.

[Anthony Mangnall]

With the greatest respect, the policing budget is not being cut. In addition, my hon. Friend is trying to make the point that by cutting the international aid budget he is going to see that money in Rother Valley—he is not. That money will go back into the Treasury. I go back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield about how small this is in terms of Treasury percentages and spending.

I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) earlier what temporary would look like and he said a year. I respectfully say to the Government that if they come to the Dispatch Box and say that it is a year I will acquiesce, I will sit down, and I will accept that a year’s cut is what needs to be done. I would argue that many other Members would do so, too. Unfortunately, we have found ourselves in something of a predicament. The announcement of the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was made off the cuff at such rapid speed that organisations such as War Child and the HALO Trust, to name just two out of many hundreds, had their budgets cut and their international programmes jeopardised.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the speed of the cuts announcement, which is compounded by the cut due to the decrease in GNI. This has been a tremendous cut affecting the most needy across the entire globe. Like he said, if we can have a commitment that this is for one year and one year only, many, including Members from the 2019 intake, will sit down and back off.

[Anthony Mangnall]

That is incredibly welcome to hear. My hon. Friend is right: there has been a double whammy in the reduction. International organisations have to deal with not only the cut itself but the overall GNI reduction. It is in place to make sure that in good years more money is available and in bad years less, thereby making the argument that we take stock of the economic situation. The point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who made the suggestion about the WaterAid programmes.

I am not against reform. I believe that we should be able to reform the ODA rules. I would love to see it spent in different ways that are more transparent and accountable. Many Members have made that point. Let us not take it down to 0.5%, but look at how we can reform it. Taking it from a single calendar year to a multi-year funding period of three or four years would give us the opportunity to look at different options so we can justify it to our constituents.

I believe that global Britain is about four things: defence, diplomacy, trade and development. All four are integrated. Failure to act and to work on one impacts the other. Our two aircraft carriers sailing around the world are hopefully unlikely to see conflict, but there is a humanitarian assistance vessel right there that could be used within our ODA budget. We must look at the impact on those different areas. Our aid pays for our security, as I have already mentioned. It is what stops terrorist organisations from across the world being able to flourish unencumbered.

We heard many from across the House say that if we led on this issue others would follow. They did. Many European countries have followed and are now reaching 0.7% targets. Canada has increased its target. America has increased its spending by £16 billion. We were leading. I ask about the message it sends to the world. In a year in which we host the G7 and COP26, and will have a good presence at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, we have the opportunity to lead by example.

[Alexander Stafford]

My hon. Friend asks what message it will send, but what message does it send to my constituents that overseas lives are more valuable than lives in this country? We have to be realistic about this—[Interruption.] It is not shameful. We are talking about messages and I ask him: what message does it send?

[Anthony Mangnall]

I would respectfully say to all of my hon. Friend’s constituents—I am happy to speak at any association event in the future—that their lives are no less valuable. What we are doing here is taking money from Peter to pay Paul. We must be honest about the value.

[Christian Wakeford]

I cannot speak for the people of Rother Valley, but to me going back to the people of Bury South and saying we support this says that we are compassionate and kind, and that we keep our promises. That is something I am proud of. That is something I want to stick up for. I want to go home and be able to tell my daughter that I did the right thing.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Quite right. If I had children I would be going back to say exactly the same thing—all to come, I am sure.

The debate is also about the British Council. I have lived in Singapore and I have worked in Nigeria. I have seen the value of these organisations. I have seen the value of soft power for the United Kingdom. I look back on 2012, a moment in which the UK exhibited its global superpower soft power. We were able to show that we were leading across the world. I hate that we are going down this route and reducing the two things that promote us in the best way.

[Navendu Mishra]

Does the hon. Member agree that using an us and them attitude is not helpful? The UK is one of the richest countries in the world and has a proud record of supporting projects across the world, and dividing people into us and them is not helpful at all in this debate.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point, and it is one that I will end on. If we are uncomfortable with how people view 0.7%, it is down to this House and to us as Members to explain it properly and show them the true value of what Britain does in a globalised world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

If I may, I will make some progress, but I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.

Probably what makes today’s debate so frustrating for people out there who may be watching and who do not share the consensus that is generally coming across is that in certain speeches—none of which was recent, I might add—it was as if we were arguing about whether to end aid in its entirety. Effectively, we are arguing today about whether we are going to spend an extraordinary amount of money on international aid or an incredible amount of money on international aid. We are allowing a debate to become skewed by a skirmish over an arbitrary percentage that was agreed back in the 1950s by the World Council of Churches on a basis of which I am still not 100% sure.

[Anthony Mangnall]

My hon. Friend is making a tremendous speech, although I happen to disagree with all of it. He is showing his true parliamentary skills, but the point is that we have arbitrary numbers all over the shop when it comes to politics, from the 2% in NATO to the 2.7% R&D commitment. It is a misnomer to suggest that we have them only in foreign aid. They are therefore not something that we should shy from introducing.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have arbitrary targets everywhere; I do not doubt that. One reason that I sought election to this place was to try to get under the skin of those arbitrary targets. Some of the shibboleths that have not been challenged for a number of years have aspects that we should perhaps look at. We might wish to retain them, but we should never be shy of reviewing them again.

I am not saying this to be sharp with hon. Members, but it cannot be that the only approved manifestation of compassion is via a single monetary figure, free from the realities of any vague financial responsibility or even a semblance of fiscal rectitude. That is before we even get into the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes quite rightly brought up about value for money. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee a couple of years ago and some very interesting reports came through on value for money in this area. I accept that it is a very difficult issue to judge, but we may wish to turn to it with as much frequency and as much depth as we talk about this single percentage.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Lee Rowley]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will try to make a little more progress.

I do not think that righteousness should be outsourced to an international sector that I have been really disappointed in in recent weeks as regards this debate. All the emails coming into my inbox, far from acknowledging the UK’s continuing commitment to those in need across the world, seem to be trying to create a frame that turns the UK’s huge generosity against itself and seeks almost to sting us into immotive or silent acquiescence.

It really must not be that virtue can be found only in criticism of one number owned by one country, when that country will still spend proportionately more this year than Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Austria, Iceland, Hungary, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea, the Czech Republic, Greece, Australia or the United States did in the previous year. I say that not just to make a rhetorical point, but because it is important that we understand the context within which we are debating this important point.

I absolutely acknowledge the strength of feeling in today’s debate from those who take a different view from mine. I hope and am sure that hon. Members who do not take my view will acknowledge that people who, like me, do not necessarily speak as loudly or as frequently on the subject, but who also feel strongly about it, also look to such signals as what people think around the country. I am afraid that in my view this debate is moving a little away from the people who placed us here. It is our job, or the job of some of us, to bring it back into balance. We all want to help lift up our fellow man, and it is not disproportionate that some of us want to do that in a way that increases the likelihood of our being able to continue to do so in the future.

Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK’s Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and the G7.

May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for providing me with the opportunity to raise the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative—otherwise known as PSVI—and the G7 on the Floor of the House today? I promise I will stop pestering the Committee for at least a couple of days.

I stand before the House as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. I am delighted to see some members of the APPG here, as well as the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has been a stalwart supporter of this initiative. Her being here today is a reflection of the importance of the International Development Committee being maintained, sustained, and continuing to scrutinise our aid and development programmes around the world.

I have been fortunate to have worked with the founding members of the PSVI—Baroness Helic, Lord Hague and Chloe Dalton—and to have seen the evolution and success of that initiative over the last nine years, so I feel that I am quite well placed to be able to debate why it is important and why it cannot be allowed to fail.

Conflicts, both old and new, are often viewed by the loss of life on the battlefield, the death and casualty lists, the land conquered, the treasures plundered, and the armies and arms deployed. But in reality, conflict is also about those on the sidelines: the innocent bystanders, the women, the children—those who bear the brunt of the conflict but receive little attention, recognition, support or, indeed, justice. It is my hope that during the course of this debate, I can remind the House and the Government about the purposes and objectives of PSVI, and reignite our global leadership on this issue.

Now more than ever, we have not only the moral duty to act, but an international landscape that is calling for action. After all, in a digitalised world, we are now greeted daily with recordings, news articles and accounts of systematic conflict-related sexual violence. Far from the issue diminishing, it is becoming more acute. Yet the objectives of PSVI have always been clear: to end the culture of impunity for perpetrators; to provide support for survivors; and to document crimes of sexual violence in conflict. Those aims stood prominently at the initiative’s inception and they hold true today.

In 2012, the collaboration between a Bosnian refugee, a Yorkshireman and a Hollywood film star resulted in not only the UK Government-led initiative, but a seismic collective collaboration from the international community to address this issue. Speaking in the Foreign Office, the then Foreign Secretary Lord Hague spoke of the need for a

“UK team of experts devoted to combating and preventing sexual violence in armed conflict.”

This short notice overseas deployment team was directed towards gathering evidence and testimony in the hope of supporting investigations and prosecutions. It used the expertise of doctors, lawyers, police, psychologists and forensic specialists. That team of experts was drawn down so as to help to protect victims, as well as support international organisations, lead training operations and develop laws and capabilities—all with a view to shattering the culture of impunity, ending rape as a weapon of war, bringing perpetrators to justice and raising awareness.

In the early years up to 2015, the UK deployed its team of experts no fewer than 65 times, to countries including Kosovo, Bosnia, Turkey, Mali and Kenya. These operations proved useful in gaining insight and experience and revealed the systematic use of rape and sexual violence in conflict areas around the world. The missions demonstrated not just that we were right to create such an initiative, but that there was a genuine need and requirement for action, so in 2014 the UK hosted the first ever global summit to end sexual violence in conflict, attracting 1,700 delegates from around the world and bringing together survivors, experts and Governments, all with the aim of addressing rape as a weapon of war. I believe there are plans for a further conference in due course; I hope the Minister might explain and reveal them.

Under UK leadership, we brought together 156 countries at the UN to denounce the use of rape as a weapon of war through the UN declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict. The early success of that initiative was readily apparent: teams of experts were being deployed; the UK political leadership was ever present; the international community was full square behind the resolutions of the day; and countries were supporting PSVI through their own domestic and international training programmes. The action was tangible, the results were measurable and the optimism was infectious.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, a change of Ministers and Governments saw PSVI pushed down the agenda. The high funding levels of 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 were steadily reduced. The PSVI team was amalgamated into different sections of the now Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as opposed to remaining as a stand-alone body. The levels of deployment were scaled back: from 2016 to 2020 they were reduced by almost 50%, despite the number of conflicts and the documentation of sexual violence increasing over that period. Today, the international community is no more at peace than it was nine years ago, so it is essential to fulfil our obligations to PSVI.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

The Administration in the United States changed recently; what is my hon. Friend’s assessment of that change of Administration? Does he see any greater willingness from the Biden Administration to help his cause?

[Anthony Mangnall]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. We now have a US President who has form in addressing gender-based violence and preventing sexual violence in conflict. With America resurgent and talking about multilateralism, that should be the hook on which we can hang our coat to ensure that initiatives such as PSVI are able to flourish over the coming years.

In Ethiopia, widespread sexual violence against the people of Tigray is ongoing. On Monday, I asked the Minister whether we would be deploying our PSVI team of experts to that area; I hope he might be able to answer when he responds to the debate. In Bangladesh, the Rohingyas are gathered in refugee camps and are detailing the appalling acts of sexual violence conducted against them in Myanmar. In Nigeria, the terrorist organisation Boko Haram kidnaps girls and forces them into marriage, as well as subjecting them to acts of sexual violence. In Iraq, we are only just beginning to learn about the true extent of sexual violence committed by ISIS.

Last year, the UN predicted that there would be 31 million more cases of sexual violence in conflict during the pandemic alone, and 2 million more cases of female genital mutilation. This crisis has been ongoing and must be addressed. The list goes on and on, yet the one common thread among all instances is that the perpetrators of these crimes will, in all likelihood, escape justice. Tackling rape in war, providing justice and supporting survivors—all are integral to peace negotiations, conflict resolution and helping communities and countries to recover and rebuild after conflicts.

The success of the weekend past shows that the Government can convene global leaders, reach international agreements and strike new trade deals—all of which I consider to be part of global Britain’s agenda. The pandemic has reasserted the need for the international community to work together, not just to defeat covid but to address the major global challenges that humanity faces. From climate change to girls’ education to tackling conflict-related sexual violence, the only resolution to these issues will arrive through international agreement and co-operation and designated leadership and action. The UK has shown that leadership in previous years and can do so again. It was particularly welcome that at the summit and in our own communiqué we committed to consider how best to strengthen international architecture for conflict-related sexual violence. However, I might go further and ask whether the Government will consider adopting the suggestion of the G7’s own gender equality advisory council, which called for an international convention to eliminate the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, with clear consequences for perpetrators and for Governments who fail to act.

Given our own G7 communiqué calling for the strengthening of international architecture for conflict-related sexual violence, I have the following, I hope helpful, suggestions. First, a new international body should be created in the international community to collect and preserve evidence of conflict-related sexual violence and help bring perpetrators to justice. Providing support for survivors and delivering justice are necessities that cannot be overlooked. After all, it is not just the absence of conflict that denotes peace, but the presence of justice.

Secondly, responsibility for the PSVI must be restored to the Foreign Secretary. At this point, I would like to apologise to Lord Ahmad, because I am trying to take a job away from him. He has done a sterling job in promoting the Murad code and the faith leadership declaration, but top-level leadership is needed on this issue. It must be viewed not as a supplementary matter but as an integral part of the Government’s agenda, and that is where it must be firmly placed.

Thirdly, the PSVI must be run with a long-term funding cycle and strategy. The yo-yoing of budgets, as highlighted by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, restricts the initiative’s ability to address deep-rooted issues. Instead, we should seek to create a long-term, 10-year plan that regularly reports to Parliament on the progress made and the strategy implemented.

Fourthly, the PSVI team should be institutionally ring-fenced in the FCDO. Such a team, or unit, should be able to stand the test of time and the changing of Ministers. In ring-fencing the PSVI, we can build real institutional knowledge that is to the benefit of us at home and those abroad as well.

The G7 has reminded us all that multilateralism is once again in the ascendancy. We should seize that opportunity, create new bodies and lead successful initiatives. The Prime Minister has rightly and admirably focused on the promotion of girls’ education. I wholeheartedly support him in that mission, but the success of one should not mean failure in another. If we are to address education for girls, we will have to tackle gender-based violence.

As I reach my concluding remarks, I respectfully ask the Minister to consider the following questions. Will he work with Members across this House and the other place to help create a new international body? Will he help to ring-fence spending and create that long-term strategy for the PSVI team? Does he agree that the PSVI must be led by a Cabinet Minister, preferably the Foreign Secretary? When will the PSVI team be deployed to Ethiopia, as mentioned by Lord Ahmad on 24 May? Does he agree with the G7 gender equality advisory council recommendations? When will the PSVI global conference be held? I recognise that an election and a global pandemic have got in the way of it, but we are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to hold a second conference and reignite that leadership.

In Christina Lamb’s book, “Our Bodies, Their Battlefield”, which should be compulsory reading for any Member who is interested in this subject, she details the different communities around the world that have been victims of sexual violence in conflict. She makes many powerful points, but perhaps the most powerful are the words:

“rape is the cheapest weapon known to man”.

It has become a tool of Government forces, militias, terrorists and criminals. It costs nothing to the perpetrator and everything to the victim. It is the weapon that brings incomprehensible harm and damage to victims. It destroys communities and societies, and it is, more often than not, responsible for sowing the seeds of future conflicts.

As I said at the start of my remarks, I am only highlighting the commitment that we made in 2012 and asking the Government to step forward to reignite their global leadership on this issue. Failure to act now not only lets down our allies and flies in the face of what we have already achieved, but can result in the blocking of other countries taking meaningful action. If the UK lacks the willpower, the ambition or the vision to renew its efforts in this area, we must be prepared to take steps to hand the initiative over to willing partners, such as America, Canada or Germany. For the sake of the Government, and for my own sake, I hope that today they will reassert their intentions to provide that global leadership. The point of today’s debate is to reflect on the positive work that has been done to date in a constructive and positive way. I look forward to hearing from other Members who have far greater experience in this area than I do. We have the opportunity here. We have the international community waiting for us to take this step. I thank the House for its time in hearing me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will begin with a time limit of seven minutes, but I envisage that that will later be reduced to six or even five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall]

I thank the Minister for his response, because there was a great deal to cover from over the course of this debate. A whole host of issues have been raised by Members with great expertise in different areas, and all the speeches have managed to inform the House of the severity of the issue and the fact that it is a crisis.

However, I would respectfully say that one of the problems we have when looking at other international organisations is that they have failed to achieve any meaningful prosecutions on this subject. If they are not working, we must try to take the steps forward to ensure that we can lead those prosecutions. It is no good our saying that there are other organisations that have objections, when we know that we can get 156 countries to sign a resolution and we know that we can get international support for what we have done in the past. We have the opportunity to take that leadership and create those new international bodies, because in the wake of every great conflict and crisis in the world, there have always been remarkable institutions and organisations set up in response. Let us be under no illusion: this is a crisis, and it will be a crisis in future conflicts unless we address it.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly said, the UK cannot respond to every single ill and evil in the world, but we stepped forward in 2012. I ask the House: what does it say about us if we do not deliver on the promises of the past to help for the future? That is what I want to see done.

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as ever, gave a splendid speech. I think the point about a survivor-led approach is right, and it is rightly reflected in the Murad code—the Minister is completely right—but the point is that the Murad code must be housed in an international organisation that sees that code of conduct deployed in every conflict area in the world but is also enforced by an organisation that can bring perpetrators to justice. Collecting evidence is only one of the pillars of what we must seek to achieve to be able to bring justice against perpetrators and to support survivors.

It has been said that, on Saturday, it is the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict. In this debate, we have raised a whole host of ideas and thoughts as to what we can do, and I look forward to seeing Members from across the House work with the Government and other Governments to get it right.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the UK’s Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and the G7.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am now going to suspend the House for one minute, because I will be in trouble if we do not take the necessary precautions.

Ethiopia

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

This is not a Government investment, but a CDC investment, although we are dancing on the head of a pin in the sense that the CDC itself is a UK Government-supported institution. We supported the bid to be a telecoms supplier; that bid precedes the Tigrayan conflict, and its successes in bringing greater mobile telephony across the area will help to transform Ethiopia. If there were any question of the money being used to support the conflict in Tigray, we would not be involved; if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of that, he should come forward. We see this as something that will open out Ethiopia, not shut it down.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

The Government have rightly identified the scale of this crisis. Will they therefore detail how the reduction from 0.7% will cut the ability for us to fund projects in Ethiopia?

May I also ask the Minister whether the preventing sexual violence in conflict team is ready to deploy into Ethiopia? It was suggested on 24 May by the special representative in the House of Lords that the team would be deploying. I would like the Minister to come to the House and tell us when they will deploy, when they will be able to provide assistance to victims of sexual violence in conflict, whether documentation of these crimes is taking place and whether we will be able to lead any prosecutions for what are the most atrocious crimes.

[James Duddridge]

I cannot give my hon. Friend the detailed breakdown that he is looking for. I do recall signing off, in the past week or so, an answer to a parliamentary question about specific support in Ethiopia; I will not quote it from memory, because I do not want to introduce errors into Hansard, but when I get back to the office I will be more than happy to point him in the direction of that PQ. I point out again that the ambassador is travelling to the region this week. We will work with our UN partners to work out what specialist support, what physical kit and which individuals across the region are needed. The answer is not always sending people from London; it is about sending people regionally to support exactly the same work. I am conscious that we will have more time to discuss the matter on Thursday, and I will make sure that I can give my hon. Friend an even better answer then.

Global Human Security

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this debate. We could not be further apart politically speaking, but she is right to raise this issue in a Westminster Hall debate, so that we can discuss how we can go forward in creating new ways to tackle this matter and to deliver on behalf of not only our own citizens but citizens around the world.

It is interesting to read United Nations resolution 66/290 from 25 October 2012, in which the UN outlines human security as something that tackles “survival, livelihood and dignity”, with an interest in restoring communities. I want to talk about dignity because, free from poverty and despair, having a people-centred approach and ensuring that we can provide peace, prosperity and development around the world is an important issue and one that I think the United Kingdom has been a global leader on.

Of course, that is somewhat in contention at the moment, because of some of the other issues that have been raised over the course of this pandemic, most specifically that of gender-based violence. I apologise to the Minister, because I think that every time we have come across each other in a Westminster Hall debate, I have raised this issue. However, what we have seen in the course of the past 13 months is a systematic rise of gender-based violence—the persecution of women, of men, of boys and of girls across the world. It is a pandemic that was here before the current Covid pandemic and it will be here long afterwards. Gender-based violence is an issue that is not just dealt with by or due to the nation state; it is a crisis that impacts humanity across the world and it must be addressed.

I make the point that the United Kingdom has shown global leadership on this issue, because we helped to pass the UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. However, in recent years we have seen the systematic increase of gender-based violence becoming all the more pronounced. In 2017, 87,000 women were killed, which equates to 137 a day, and the UN has suggested that last year alone about 242 million women and girls would be victims of sexual abuse. Of course, at the moment there is no remit to bring perpetrators to justice. We rightly talk about dignity and about the ability to help those most in need across the world, but where is the dignity if we stay silent on this issue? Where is the dignity in our responses and our ambitions if we fail to tackle this pervasive and increasing horror, which is a gross human rights violation?

We have been retreating on these issues, and I have heard time and time again from the Government about the fact that the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative continues to thrive from place to place, and continues to involve itself in different regions of the world. Yet at present in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, where some of the most appalling human rights violations—including sexual violence—are going on, the PSVI has not been deployed. The PSVI is no longer being used for the very purpose that it was set up for, so I have to question in this important debate on this important subject why we are not using the tools that we have at our disposal to help those who are most in need.

My second point should not be a surprise, given the point I have just made. It is the fact that one of the ways in which we can tackle this issue, and one of the ways in which we can show global leadership, is by retaining the 0.7% target. This is something that I have long seen as a tool in Britain’s diplomatic arsenal, a tool that allows us to be a global leader in development, and a tool that we have been able to use in our diplomatic network. To be able to tackle the valid points raised by the hon. Member for Bath, which I am sure others will raise as well, we must retain that number so that we can show our commitment to the world and continue to fund programmes and show global leadership

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the current signals from the Government, we are setting ourselves up against other nations rather than wanting to work with them? That is not a good way of seeking co-operation across the board on such important issues as women and violence.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. I think we are stepping back where we should step forward. The UK has form in leadership, but we are not doing that. The Minister can shake his head—I am sorry to be against him on this issue—but when it comes to sexual and gender-based violence and aid, we are expected to play a part. Nations do not accept that we are doing that at present, so we must take a step forward.

I know many Members wish to speak in this debate. We have a duty to the world’s poorest, a duty to those in despair, and a duty to those who are suffering. As conflicts and crises rage around the world, we are seen to be mute. I hope the Minister can correct me on where I am wrong and can tell me that our units are going out to Ethiopia to help victims of gender-based and sexual violence, but nothing has shown me anything different from what has been suggested already. We often confuse movement for action. Following this debate and many others that we will have in this Chamber, I hope we will be able to address this issue and recognise that it is not just about the nation state, but about how we respond to human crises around the world in a way that we can rightly be proud of.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

I will make more progress. We are using our presidency of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow later this year to get countries to commit to credible plans that will enable them to meet the commitments that they made under the Paris accord. We are also using the summit to boost co-operation and climate finance so that countries can adapt and build resilience to the evolving climate threat. The UK has pledged £11.6 billion of international climate finance over the next five years, and we will spend a significant proportion of that on building resilience in vulnerable countries. In January, the Prime Minister launched the adaptation action coalition to galvanise momentum on climate adaptation ahead of COP26 and beyond it.

We have also worked to secure more international attention on the overlap between climate change and security threats. In February, the Prime Minister chaired the UN Security Council open debate, which was the first-ever leader-level discussion on climate change in the Security Council. We are also addressing the interlinked climate and security challenges through NATO.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) raised the issue of cyber. Unlike pandemics and climate change, advanced technologies bring with them significant benefit, but they also have embedded in them significant risks. Artificial intelligence, for example, has the potential to help to tackle global challenges but, as AI technologies such as facial recognition continue to develop in sophistication, we need to ensure that such technologies are not used as a tool of repression. The UK Government believe in responsible technological innovation that benefits everyone, but this is a fast evolving area, with a dearth of international agreement. That is why we are working with industry and like-minded countries to enhance responsible development of AI and to ensure that the use of data is safe, fair, legal and ethical. The UK Government will soon launch a national AI strategy, which will help to make the UK a global centre for the development and adoption of responsible AI.

The UK is also at the forefront of demonstrating that there are meaningful consequences for malicious cyber-activity. Last year, working with the EU—this is another example of the international co-operation that we engage in—we imposed cyber sanctions on 12 entities and individuals from China, Russia and North Korea through the EU cyber sanctions regime. We will continue to work closely with international partners to impose sanctions through our own autonomous cyber sanctions regime. The National Cyber Security Centre has played a pivotal role in responding to cyber-incidents and is acknowledged as a global centre of excellence. The resilience of our allies is also critical, which is why, since 2012, we have invested up to £39 million in international cyber-security programmes and projects, working with more than 100 countries to build their cyber resilience.

The integrated review is a blueprint for navigating this more competitive and dangerous age. It identified the need to build our resilience, which we will address in greater detail in the new UK resilience strategy to be developed this year, looking at domestic and international challenges.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The Minister talks about the integrated review providing a blueprint for a long-term strategy to deal with the conflicts and crises of the world. Will he tell us how he thinks cutting the 0.7% aid budget fulfils that long-term strategy, or that commitment to the world’s poorest, or that commitment to some of the most challenging regions in the world?

[James Cleverly]

The integrated review makes a specific commitment to get back to the 0.7% as quickly as possible. The Conservative Government are immensely proud that we were committed to that 0.7%. I remind my hon. Friend and others that even 0.5% makes us one of the most generous aid donors in the world and is higher than in almost all years under the previous Labour Government. The most important way to get the UK back to the position where we can be as generous as we would naturally wish to be is to ensure that the UK economy recovers quickly. The faster the economy can recover, the more quickly we can get back to 0.7% and, in absolute terms, the larger that 0.7% will be.

[Anthony Mangnall]

rose—

[James Cleverly]

Let me conclude by making a pledge on behalf of the UK Government to continue to defend and promote the interests and wellbeing of the British people. The integrated review provides a framework to address the manifold threats that imperil our nation and our national security. While the challenges are significant, the UK is playing a leading role in finding global solutions. The diversity of our economy, the depth and breadth of British expertise, our targeted investment and the reach of our international networks mean that we are well placed to adapt and respond to the challenges ahead. As the host of G7 and the COP climate summit later this year, with our international allies on our side and the blueprint provided by the integrated review in hand, we are well placed to help the world to build back better from coronavirus and create a greener, fairer, more prosperous and more secure future for us all.

Human Rights Update

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The remarks that the hon. Lady quoted are simply wrong. Today, we are demonstrating the world-leading approach that we are taking to hold to account those responsible for human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

It is extraordinary to hear the Opposition criticise the Government for not working with the international community one week and then criticise us this week for working with the international community. Today, we are taking a lockstep approach with 30 other countries. If the Opposition will not ask the salient questions then we will. May I ask how the Foreign Secretary will look to include or expand the list of those named in China and how we will be able to further engage the international community to take action where human rights violations take place?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful statement and his welcome support. Obviously, we do not comment on individual names, not least because we do not want to give them foresight or advance warning if we were to take measures. We keep the evidence under review. If he has any particular evidence—I have talked to other Members of the House in relation to some of the third-party and open-source information that has been published—we will, of course, look at it very carefully.

Sri Lanka

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate and on her work in raising this matter both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall debates. It is a pleasure to be able to take part. I also associate myself with the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) in relation to the Magnitsky Act and making sure that we use its full potential to ensure that we can bring to justice people who are committing human rights violations. As ever, it is a pleasure to be in the same debate as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I appreciate what he said.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, I would like to address how we could use the PSVI to tackle some of the human rights violations and abuses that have been identified by so many Members. As many have said, the progress that has been made since 2009 has been incredibly limited. In fact, the Sri Lankan Government’s decision to reverse their position is of grave concern.

In recent weeks and months, we have heard the Foreign Secretary talk about the need for the UNHCR to restore its reputation to make sure that it acts on human rights violations. I would say that we, too, can do well to listen to that advice. The international community, at a point at which it is fractured and divided, could again become united and stand together in addressing the violations of human rights of countries around the world, and Sri Lanka would be a good place to start.

A recent report from the UN states that there continue to be

“credible allegations, through well-known human rights organizations, of abductions, torture and sexual violence by Sri Lankan security forces since the adoption of Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, including during the past year”.

The preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative was set up on the basis of helping those who, as its name says, have endured sexual violence in conflict and crisis zones. The UK, when it set it up in 2012 and 2014, was able to engage international co-operation to be able to ensure not only that resolutions in the UN could pass, but that documentation could be provided of crimes that are going on across the globe, that survivors could be supported, and that potential prosecutions in future years could be delivered. If the organisations that are currently set up are failing to deliver that, I suggest that we push forward to create on our own new international body that can help to document these crimes, support survivors, and lead international prosecutions. Out of every great conflict and crisis that has happened throughout mankind, great new reforming bodies have come, and this should be no exception.

I want to make two final points. First, this year there is the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda, and, as has always been the case, we should be able to speak truth to our friends. It would be a missed opportunity for us to not speak clearly at the CHOGM about what has happened in Rwanda to ensure that there can be co-operation in order to address the human rights violations that have happened. Secondly, we must make sure that we raise these issues at the G7 in order to provide support for those who have endured human rights violations, and to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice and the culture of impunity is shattered. We have an opportunity—I do not believe this to be bravado—to lead the international community to take action to help safeguard human rights and to lead by example, and I hope that we can do so.